Re: An idea: GxSE

[smd@ebone.net (Sean Doran)]

Jon (Taz) Mischo <taz@tazlore.com> writes:

| This is similar to the idea I had expressed.

Let me see if I understand where you're headed.

1. split v6 address into two components:
	"SK" - unique and end-to-end
	"GR" - shared and local

2. The unique and end-to-end component corresponds to "who", as in
   "who is it that originated this packet" (satisfying Vixie) or as
   in "who is at the receiving end of this packet" (satisfying demulti-
   plexing)

3. The other component corresponds to "where", as in "where in the
   (local) topology can I find a hop much closer to my desired destination".
   IOW, "where" is a forwarding instruction for LOCAL routers that help
   them get towards the unique "who".

4. The forwarding instruction may cause _routers_ to do any number of things:
	discard packet (with or without signalling an error)
	forward a packet out a particular interface
	swap "labels" - forward out a particular interface but with a 
            new forwarding instruction	
        
5. Should _hosts_ which are not also routers EVER look at GR?  Why?
   What should the host expect of a non-unique locally-scoped address
   component?

6. Should _routers_ ever touch the SK ("who") component?
   By "touch" I mean (a) mutate or (b) examine.
   The simple case for (b) is when the host examines SK to determine if
      the packet is addressed to the router itself.

5&6 go to the heart of the end-to-end against NAT argument,
and I would be curious to see if any kind of consensus can be
formed among the people with very strong (and opposite) views
who are here on this list.

I would also be interested in the input of host and router vendors
who have some experience in implementing a variety of protocols.

	Sean.